Praise for the Pope

Like most of you who read this blog, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I have considerable appreciation for Pope Francis. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in 1936, ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1969, and elected Pope in March 2013. He chose Francis as his papal name in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi. 

Pope Francis speaking at the Vatican on 10/4/23]

There are many reasons to praise Pope Francis. For example, just nine days ago (on 10/4/23), the Pope issued an “apostolic exhortation” under the title Laudate Deum (=Praise God). That document, which can be read in full here, was directed “to all people of good will” and was “on the climate crisis.”

Last month, I read much of Fratelli tutti, Pope Francis’s encyclical officially published by the Vatican in 2020 on October 4, the feast day of Francis of Assisi. While there was much good and important content, I was somewhat critical of it as it seemed to be lacking specificity or concreteness.

This month’s new document, however, which is a commentary on Laudato si' (=Praise Be to You), the Pope’s major 2015 encyclical on the environment, is generally quite specific and concrete. In the second paragraph of this recent “exhortation,” the Pope says:

…with the passage of time, I have realized that our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point.

Over the past twenty months, I have cited Michael Dowd and others who have spoken warningly about collapse, but here is a clear statement about that fateful future by the Pope.**

Also, an Oct. 4 Vatican News article (see here) states that in Laudate Deum the Pope “criticizes climate change deniers, saying that the human origin of global warming is now beyond doubt.”

Early this month, the Pope convened the three-week General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops at the Vatican, sometimes called the Super Bowl of the Catholic Church. It drew bishops from around the world to discuss hot-button issues.

Some of those issues are whether priests should be allowed to get married, if divorced and remarried Catholics should receive communion, whether women should be allowed to become deacons, and how the church will handle matters around the LGBTQ community.

It remains to be seen how, or when, these contentious matters will be resolved, but for those of us who are egalitarians, the Pope’s willingness to consider such matters is certainly praiseworthy.

Sadly, many USAmericans have little praise for the Pope. Politics takes precedence over their religious faith. Or for others, they hold to an outdated, conservative Catholicism and are, literally, more traditionally Catholic than the Pope.

According to an Aug. 28 APNews.com post, “Many conservatives have blasted Francis’s emphasis on social justice issues such as the environment and the poor,” and they have also branded as heretical his openness “to letting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receive the sacraments.”

As an example of politics taking precedence over the position of the Pope, consider the contrast between Francis’s recent “exhortation” regarding global warming and U.S. Catholics.

The Pope, as well as the preponderant majority of climate scientists around the world, emphasizes that “the human origin of global warming is now beyond doubt.”

But last month, Pew Research Center (here) reported that only 44% of U.S. Catholics say Earth is warming mainly due to human activity—and of U.S. Catholics who are Republicans or lean Republican, only a strikingly low 18% think that global warming is human-caused.

In response to such criticism, the Pope has called the strong, organized, reactionary attitude of some Catholics in the U.S. Church “backward,” and has stated that their faith has been replaced by ideologies.

Francis reminds these people that “backwardness is useless, and they must understand that there’s a correction evolution in the understanding of questions of faith and morals” that allows for doctrine to progress over time.

Such progressiveness is one of the main reasons I have praise for the Pope. His deep concern for the future well-being of all people around the world has led him to claim that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.

Would that all Catholics, and all Protestants as well, could embrace these progressive ideas of the forward-looking Pope.

_____

** With considerable sadness I am sharing the news that Michael Dowd (b. 11/1958) died on October 7 as the result of a fall in a friend’s home. More information about his death and memorial service is available here. 

Determinedly Defending Democracy

You probably have heard/read about last week’s “Summit for Democracy,” convened by President Biden via Zoom on Dec. 9-10. In spite of criticism from totalitarian governments (especially from China) and some domestic opponents, the President sought determinedly to defend democracy.

(Here is the link to the President’s closing remarks on Dec. 10.)

The Decline of Democracy

Freedom House is a non-profit, non-governmental organization in Washington, D.C., that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. Here is part of their report for 2021: 

Accordingly, President Biden warned world leaders at the Summit for Democracy on Dec. 9 of a “backward slide” in democracy around the globe and urged them to champion the form of government that needs concerted work to be sustained through an “inflection point in history.” (See here.)

The editors of the Dec. 15 issue of The Christian Century wrote of “Democracy’s death spiral” in the U.S., declaring that right now democracy “is under open attack.” (You can read that powerful editorial on p. 7 here).

And even Pope Francis has recently lamented that democracy has deteriorated dangerously as discontented people are lured by the “siren songs” of populist politicians who promise easy but unrealistic solutions. (The Pope expressed that sentiment on Dec. 4 as reported by Reuters.)

The Threat to Democracy

The biggest domestic threat to U.S. democracy in everyone’s lifetime was the attempted coup by Donald Trump and his fanatical supporters on January 6 of this year. But according to Barton Gellman, January 6 was practice for what is coming. 

Gellman (b. 1960) was on the staff of The Washington Post for 21 years, but now is a staff writer at The Atlantic. His cover story for the Jan./Feb. 2022 issue of that venerable magazine (founded in 1857) is “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun.”

It is becoming increasingly clear from the indefatigable work of the January 6 Committee that the events on that volatile day at the Capitol were not due to outside rabble-rousers. It clearly was an inside job, that is, plotted from inside the White House.

An opinion piece in the Dec. 14 issue of The Washington Post is titled “Trump’s PowerPoint coup plotters were crackpots. We may not be so lucky next time.”

In that article, columnist Dana Milbank quips that then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, now being held in contempt of Congress (for his refusal to testify), “would more properly be held in contempt of competence.”

Milbank concludes by saying that on 1/6/21 “democracy was saved only by the bumbling of the coup plotters.” Next time, though, “we may not be so lucky.”

The Defense of Democracy

To a large extent, the defense of U.S. democracy is up to the Congress—and up to us voters who elect the 535 voting members of Congress. That is why next year’s election is so important. All 435 members of the House will be elected, of course, and 34 Senate seats will be decided.

But now the changes in election procedures in numerous states jeopardizes a truly democratic election next year.

The President was determinedly defending democracy at the Summit for Democracy last week. Now he must do everything necessary to defend U.S. democracy in 2022 and beyond.

Addendum: What about Democracy in the Church?

This article has been about the form of government employed, or rejected, by nation states. But what about churches, either as denominations or as local congregations? As a baptist (lower case intended), I am a strong advocate of democracy in church government.

I wonder, though, about the contradiction in the thinking of people who are advocates of democracy in the national government but have no qualms about accepting a hierarchical, non-democratic form of government for churches.

For example, is the completely hierarchical (authoritarian?) structure of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, in direct contradiction to the Pope’s good word about political democracy?

Junípero Serra: A Sorry Saint

Even though he has little name recognition in most circles, this article is about a man of considerable importance in the history of California and of marked religious interest since he was canonized by Pope Francis five years ago on September 23, 2015. 

Who Was Junípero Serra?

Miguel José Serra was born in November 1713 on the Spanish island of Mallorca in the Mediterranean Sea. When he took his vows to become a Franciscan priest in 1737, Serra took the name Junípero, which was the name of one of St. Francis’s devoted friends.

From his childhood, Serra dreamed of becoming a missionary. After teaching philosophy for several years in Spain, in 1749 he finally was able to make the 6,000-mile trip to Mexico and to begin missionary work there.

On December 15 of that year, Father Serra and another priest started walking from the coastal city of Veracruz to Mexico City, some 260 miles away. On the journey, he was bitten by a mosquito and his left foot became infected. He suffered for the rest of his life from that malady.

Serra spent 38½ years as a missionary in Mexico, Baja California, and in what was then known as Alta California. He died in what is now Monterey County, California, in August 1784 at the age of 70.

The Noble Junípero Serra

Serra’s main claim to fame is as the founder of nine “missions” along the coast of California, from San Diego de Alcalá (in 1769) in the south to San Francisco de Asís (in 1776) on the north. The current cities of San Diego and San Francisco, of course, grew out of Serra’s missions.

In 1769, it is estimated that there were around 300,000 Native Americans in what is now California. Through the indefatigable efforts of Serra and his co-workers, about one-third of those became Roman Catholics.

Because of his meritorious missionary work, Serra became the first Hispanic person to be canonized—by the first Hispanic Pope in the first canonization mass held in the United States.

Even though he was a Franciscan priest and missionary, Serra is sometimes called “the father of California” (see here, for example). Pope Francis has said that he sees Serra as “one of the founding fathers of the United States.” Many Californians through the years have agreed.

As you probably know, each state chooses statues of two of the most important persons in their states to stand in the U.S. Capitol Building. California’s statues are of Ronald Regan and the noble Junípero Serra.

The Ignoble Junípero Serra

There are many who disagree with Serra’s adulation, however. At the time of his canonization, there were serious protests in California, especially by Native Americans. Serra’s statue in a city park in Monterey was decapitated at that time. 

Interestingly, in sympathy with the protests against Confederate statues this year, Serra’s monuments again became targets of protest. On June 19 activists pulled down a Serra statue in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, and the next day, a Serra statue in Los Angeles was toppled. 

A 9/29/15 New York Times article frankly states, “Historians agree that [Serra] forced Native Americans to abandon their tribal culture and convert to Christianity, and that he had them whipped and imprisoned and sometimes worked or tortured to death.”

Ten weeks before Serra’s canonization, Pope Francis publicly apologized for the “grave sins” of colonialism against Indigenous Peoples of America. But that did not keep him from following through with his making Serra a saint.

Although there is much to admire about Junípero Serra, it was probably a mistake for him to be canonized—but since he was, it is fitting to call Serra a sorry saint.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

Dan Horan is a Franciscan priest and a theology professor whom I cited at some length in my August 25 blog post. On July 8 he had a thought-provoking article largely about Serra in the National Catholic Reporter, and I recommend the careful reading of that perceptive article titled “The preferential option for the removal of statues.”

Is the Pope a “Social Justice Jackass”?

Last month I wrote about Breitbart News referring to Rev. William Barber II as a “social justice jackass.” I thought that was pretty bad. But now Breitbart has even used that inelegant label for Pope Francis!  

The Pope’s Position

Breitbart’s complaint (on 9/19) against the Pope was because of his call for the abolition of life imprisonment. According to a 9/16 National Catholic Report article (here), two days earlier Pope Francis told an audience in St. Peter’s Square that “sentencing someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole is ‘not the solution to problems, but a problem to solve.’”

(Here is the link to that full address to penitentiary police and others.)

Actually, this has been Pope Francis’s position for quite some time. Five years ago, on 10/23/14, he called for the abolition of both the death penalty and life imprisonment. According to this Catholic News Service article, on that date he told representatives of the International Association of Penal Law, “Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty.”

The Right’s Position

It seems quite clear that the political Right and the so-called Christian Right strongly support both capital punishment and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for heinous crimes.

In the blog article planned for later this month, I will be writing about being fed up with Christian fundamentalism partly because of their view of capital punishment and two other issues. However, I don’t deal with the matter of life imprisonment in my book on fundamentalism, to which the upcoming blog article will be linked.

The position on both capital punishment and life imprisonment, though, seems to be the same: encouraging harsh retributive justice.

It has been said (here, for example) that there are four purposes of prison: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The author of this linked-to article explains: “Retribution means punishment for crimes against society. Depriving criminals of their freedom is a way of making them pay a debt to society for their crimes.”

According to Breitbart—and most likely most of those who read/support that far-right syndicated news, opinion and commentary website—opposition to strong retributive punishment invites one, even the Pope, to be labeled a “social justice jackass.”  

The Correct Position?

As many of you may not know, my college major was sociology. (I waited until seminary to study the Bible and Christian theology academically.) Criminology was one of the valuable courses I took in pursuit of that major, and it was in that course that I became convinced of the validity, and desirability, of indeterminant sentences.

Among other things, that means that there should never be such a thing as life sentences without the possibility of parole. And, certainly, capital punishment should never be condoned.

While there is some reason for sensible retribution, and more reason for prison used for incapacitation and deterrence, surely the most important purpose of prison is rehabilitation.

Admittedly, rehabilitation—and the proper evaluation of rehabilitation—is not at all easy. And incapacitation, the removal of criminals from society so that they can no longer harm innocent people, is of clear importance for the wellbeing of society in general.

Still, for example, aren’t there many young men (and maybe some women) who committed heinous crimes in the passion of their youthful impetuousness but who learn in ten, or twenty, years the shamefulness and senselessness of those crimes and who would never think of committing such crimes again?

Given the obstinacy of some few, lifetime imprisonment might be required for them. But for most, surely with proper attention given to rehabilitation, there can be an optimal time for release from prison.

So, no, Breitbart, I definitely do not think that Pope Francis is a “social justice jackass”—on this or many other social justice issues.

Solidarity with the Poor

Pope Francis designated this past Sunday as World Day of the Poor. It was the second of what will likely be an ongoing, and expanding, observance by the Roman Catholic Church. But the plight of the poor—and solidarity with the poor, which the Pope has often emphasized—is something all of us need to think about seriously.

The Poor

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report issued in Sept. 2018, there are nearly 40 million people in the U.S. living in poverty. That is 12.3% of the total population. For African-Americans the percentage is much higher: 21.7%. Sadly, the report also indicates that 17.5% of all children under 18 are living in poverty.

Worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where it is the worst, the percentage of people living in poverty is much higher. True, the poverty rates have been steadily declining in recent decades. But there are still vast segments of society, at home and especially abroad, that suffer daily from the effects of being poor.

Surely, people of goodwill must become more fully aware that domestic and international poverty is a shameful reality and be inclined to act to alleviate as much of that poverty as possible.

The Challenge

The Pope has, as have many other religious and also some civic leaders, been challenging people to be more aware of and compassionate toward the poor of the world. 

In his message for World Day of the Poor (you can read that message here), he used the word “solidarity” four times this year, as he did last year, and during his papacy he has often spoken of solidarity with or for the poor.

For example, in July (here) the Pope said,

"The proclamation of Christ, bread of eternal life, requires a generous commitment of solidarity for the poor, the weak, the least important, the defenseless. This action of proximity and charity is the best verification of the quality of our faith, both on a personal level and on a community level."

To make a generous commitment of solidarity with the poor is a difficult challenge. It is much easier to talk about being/living in solidarity than actually doing so.   

The Difficulties

To be in solidarity with the poor means, among other things, to be committed to “simple living,” as I have written about previously (see here and here). But living in such a manner is not easy.

It is easy, though, to rationalize, to quickly come up with reasons why we should buy or spend money for this or that, which would be out of the question for those who are poor.

Further, it is easy to engage in tokenism, claiming that such and such is done in solidarity with the poor when it is just a rather insignificant part of the totality of what we spend for things the poor cannot purchase or experience.

Part of the problem in trying to live in solidarity with the poor is that those around such a person, especially those who are closest, will likely not appreciate the emphasis on solidarity—and it is hard to talk about living in solidarity with the poor without sounding “holier than thou.”

In spite of the attendant difficulties, people who profess to be followers of Jesus—and all people of goodwill—must surely seek to live and to think more and more in solidarity with the poor.

And among other things, this also calls for supporting the politicians who are, and whichever political party is, conscientiously seeking to enact legislation that will be of greatest benefit to the poor people of our nation and of the world.

Ten Most Admired Contemporary Christians

Who are the ten living, and still active, Christian speakers/writers that you admire/respect the most? Recently I began to think about that question, and now I am sharing my (tentative) list with you.

Please note that these are “professional” Christians who are currently active (or not completely retired). They are people who primarily speak to or write for a “popular” audience rather than to academia. Thus, none are full-time religion/theology professors.

(My list of the contemporary theologians/professors that I admire most would be quite different.)

One more brief caveat: my list is skewed a bit (but not much) by my desire to include some diversity. I didn’t want the list to be completely of white, male, Protestants like me.

So here is my list, presented in alphabetical order (by last name): 

WILLIAM BARBER (b. 1963)

Rev. Barber is perhaps the person on this list I have known about for the shortest time. I probably heard about him for the first time when working on my 9/30/13 blog article about the Moral Monday movement in North Carolina. I have since seen him on several YouTube videos and then was impressed anew when I heard him deliver a powerful sermon in Kansas City last year. Here is the link to the blog article I wrote about him last September.

AMY BUTLER (b. c. 1970)

Rev. Butler has been pastor of the highly influential Riverside Church in New York City since 2014. I first met her when I visited a Sunday morning worship service at Calvary Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., in 2012 when she was pastor there, and I regularly see/read her perceptive op-ed articles. 

SIMONE CAMPBELL (b. 1945)

Widely known as “the nun on the bus,” Sister Simone is the executive director of NETWORK, a nonprofit Catholic social justice lobby. She was the subject of my 9/20/14 blog article (see here). 

TONY CAMPOLO (b. 1935)

Stimulating writer and extraordinarily good speaker, in my 2/18/15 blog article I called Campolo “one of my favorite people.” He is one I would have long had on a list such as this. 

SHANE CLAIBORNE (b. 1975)

The youngest person on this list, Claiborne is the author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (2006, 2016). He is a young man worth reading and listening to. 

POPE FRANCIS (b. 1936)

Perhaps this selection speaks for itself. 

JAMES FORBES (b. 1935)

A marvelous preacher and gentleman, I have long admired Rev. Forbes, who was pastor of Riverside Church in New York from 1989 to 2007. 

BRIAN McLAREN (b. 1956)

I have been an admirer of McLaren since I read his novel A New Kind of Christian (2001). Then in 2008 I marked that the best theology book I had read that year was his Everything Must Change (2007). As a primary leader of the emergent church movement, he is a very significant contemporary Christian leader. 

JIM WALLIS (b. 1948)

Founder, president, and CEO of Sojourners and editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine, I have been an admirer of Wallis since the early 1970s—and have written about him and his early activities in this article on another blogsite. 

PHILIP YANCEY (b. 1949)

I have personally met or seen/heard all of the above persons—except for Pope Francis, for obvious reasons. But I have never met Yancey; however, I have read, and been impressed by, several of his books. I especially recommend What’s So Amazing about Grace? (1997) and Soul Survivor (2001).

Since these are contemporary Christians that I most admire, I have also learned from them--and my faith has grown, I believe, because of them. 

Who's on your list?

From "Just War" to "Just Peace"

New Year’s Day has come and gone and it's already in the fifth day of 2017. But do you know that January 1 was not only New Year’s Day but was also the Catholic Church’s World Day of Peace (WDP)? In fact, this year was the 50^th anniversary of the WDP. 

The Pope promotes nonviolence 

For this year’s WDP observance, Pope Francis chose the theme “Nonviolence: A Style of Politics for Peace”.

John Dear, a Catholic priest and peace activist (whom I wrote about here in 2014), has pointed out (here) that the Pope’s message on New Year’s Day was the Catholic Church’s first statement on nonviolence ever made. 

The Pope emphasized, “To be true followers of Jesus today also includes embracing his teaching about nonviolence.” He goes on to state, “The name of God cannot be used to justify violence.” (Click here to see the Pope’s entire message.)

In his WDP message Pope Francis said, “I plead for disarmament and for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.”

Those important words by the Pope were made public last month about two weeks before the PEOTUS (foolishly? dangerously?) tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

The long “just war” position

The term “just war” was introduced by Augustine of Hippo in his early fifth century book The City of God. It was later articulated in depth by 13th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. At present, it is outlined by four conditions in the formal Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

(See here for a brief statement of “the traditional elements” in what the Catechism calls the “‘just war’ doctrine.”)

A major problem, though, is this: the leaders of every country that is at least somewhat culturally Christian thinks that all wars they engage in are just wars. When have you ever heard the political leader of a Western country admit that their country’s war activities were not just?

When will you ever hear that? My guess is, Never.

In February 1991, then-President Bush sought to assure the American public that his proposed Gulf War conformed to the historic principles of Just War theory.

(It is perhaps noteworthy, however, that Bush II did not use that same language with regard to the Iraq War; although he would never admit it, perhaps he harbored doubts about his presumptive war being just.)

Death kneel for the “just war” doctrine?

There have always been opponents of the just war doctrine. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, wrote (in 1508), “The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war.”

Now, however, key leaders in the Catholic Church have spoken against it. “Death Knell for Just War: The Vatican’s Historic Turn toward Nonviolence” is the title of John Dear’s article in the Autumn 2016 issue of Plough. (Click here to see that important article.)

(And if you are interested, see this link for an article I wrote last summer about Plough.)

Dear’s article was about the Vatican’s Nonviolence and Just Peace Conference held in April of last year. That seminal meeting issued a document titled “An Appeal to the Catholic Church to Recommit to the Centrality of Gospel Nonviolence.” That appeal included a call for the Church to no longer use or teach “just war theory.”

The Pope seems to have followed that guideline in his World Peace Day message.

My prayer is that all Christians, and others, will heed the recent Catholic call for movement from “just war” to “just peace” and will seek to sanction only nonviolence as the style of politics for peace.

"Dung of the Devil"

Tomorrow (Feb. 10) is Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent. For Christians around the world, this is the important 46-day period (40 days plus Sundays) of preparation for the celebration of Easter.

Although Ash Wednesday and Lent are now widely observed in Protestant churches, they started, of course, in the Catholic Church—and the main reason the Baptist church I grew up in, and most Baptist churches back then, didn’t observe Ash Wednesday or Lent is probably because they were thought to be Catholic practices.

While I have some reservations about the whole cyclical church calendar thing, I now acknowledge that there are good and important emphases in the observance of Ash Wednesday and Lent. I will be attending my church’s Ash Wednesday service tomorrow and observing some limited Lenten practices until Easter.

Pope Francis’ annual Lenten exhortation for this year was released on January 26. In a Religion News Service article posted the same day, journalist David Gibson wrote that in this year’s “message to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics,” the Pope uses “some of his most powerful language yet” in talking about “the corrupting influence of money and power.”

In his article Gibson also pointed out that the Pope has called the “unfettered pursuit of money” the “dung of the devil,” and he links to an address that the Pope gave in Bolivia in July 2015. Here is a bit from that powerful speech by Pope Francis:

Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea – one of the first theologians of the Church – called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. This is the “dung of the devil”.

Some newspapers, such as The Guardian, the British national daily founded in 1821, reported on the Pope’s 7/15 speech under this headline: “Unbridled capitalism is the ‘dung of the devil’, says Pope Francis.”

Others pointed out, correctly, that that sensationalized headline wasn’t exactly true. The Pope went on to say (after the words cited above), Once capital becomes an idol and guides people's decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women . . .”

So even though it is often difficult to separate capitalism from greed, it is the latter that can be, and has been, called “the dung of the devil.”

Just recently I learned about a Catholic group whose name is Malteser International Americas (MIA). According to this article, this year is their second annual “Make Lent Count” campaign. They emphasize that Lent is a time for giving and not just giving up.

________________February 10, 2016________

Parenthetically, this same group has recently taken action in South America to protect women and their unborn babies from the Zika virus. (See this article.)

In January of last year I wrote about Super Bowl Idolatry, which seems to have gone unabated this year. But the Pope’s warning is about the idolatry of greed, which is not unrelated to activities surrounding the Super Bowl but is of much greater importance—because it is worldwide and year-round.

The practice of giving up something for Lent—or of extra giving during Lent as the MIA and other Christians emphasize—is important as an antidote to the ever-present tendency to step into the dung of the devil.

*****

500^th Post

      The first post I made in this blog was in July 2009, and it was very short and tentative. Counting that as the first, though, this is now my 500^th blog posting. At this point I don’t know how many more there will be—probably I won’t make it to 1,000—but I plan to keep on at the same pace in the foreseeable future.

I am grateful to all of you who have read many, of even some, of my articles. My special thanks goes to those of you who have taken time to respond with posted comments and by email.

Is Politics Trumping Mercy?

In this age of the demise of many magazines because of the great growth of information on the Internet, a small Christian community in New York known as the Bruderhof has bravely begun to publish the Plough Quarterly, an excellent new publication said to be “breaking ground for a renewed world.” 

The theme of the Winter 2016 issue, which I received earlier this month, is just their seventh one, and it is a good one. Each issue has a theme expressed in one word, and the theme of the new issue is “Mercy.”

A week ago, on the 50th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council (about which I wrote in my previous article), the Jubilee Year of Mercy began in the Catholic Church. 

Back in April, Pope Francis issued a public statement that the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy would begin on the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. And he went on to declare, “The Church feels a great need to keep this event alive.” 

I don’t fully understand all that is meant by the Jubilee Year, but I do comprehend that Pope Francis is calling upon Catholics, and all Christians, to “live lives shaped by mercy.” 

According to Catholic teachings, seven types of actions are called “the corporeal works of mercy.” They include the seven things you see in the following image:

So even though they are on a vastly different scale, a small Protestant group and the large and powerful Catholic Church are emphasizing mercy at the very same time. That seems to be highly appropriate, for in the Bible the prophet Micah spoke these powerful words about God’s desire for us humans: 

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (6:8, NIV)

Acts of mercy are central to the Christian faith.

One definition of mercy is “compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.” The dictionary’s third definition of mercy is “compassionate treatment of those in distress.” 

As I understand it, the Bible’s emphasis on mercy is particularly of the latter type—and that is the type of mercy found in the Catholic Church’s list of “corporeal works of mercy.”

Recently (here) I was critical of Kentucky’s new governor and the other (mostly Republican) governors who are so negative about accepting Syrian refugees. Of course there has to be extensive checks on those coming into this country and the safety of U.S. citizens must always be a matter of great concern. 

But why does anyone think the President or the (mostly Democratic) governors who want to receive Syrian refugees are not concerned about the safety issue? Of course they are. 

Like so many other current matters, the acceptance of Syrian refugees into this country is to a large degree a political issue. 

Among other things, the Republican presidential candidates have greatly exaggerated the number of Syrian refugees being considered. Donald Trump even charged that the President wants to bring 250,000 into this country. But the real figure under consideration for 2016 is around 10,000. 

It is a real shame that politicians (and the segment of the public supporting those politicians) put politics ahead of mercy. I have it on good authority (see Matthew 5:7) that it is the merciful who will be blessed; for to them mercy will be shown.

Listening to the Pope

Most of us Protestants, perhaps, have not paid a lot of attention to what the Pope has said and done through the years. But things have changed somewhat since Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected Pope in February 2013.

Choosing Francis as his papal name in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis has often been a topic of conversation, even for those who are not Christians as well as for Protestants.

The Pope is especially much in the news now because of his visit to Cuba, which began yesterday, and to the United States, which is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, the 22^nd.

President Obama is scheduled to welcome the Pope in a ceremony at the White House at 9:15 on Wednesday morning. That will be followed by a parade along 15^th Street, Constitution Avenue and 17^th Street, NW.

People wishing to see the pontiff were invited to line the streets around the Ellipse and the National Mall as he rides by in the Popemobile.

That parade, scheduled to begin around 11:00 a.m., is free and open to the public on a first-come-first-serve basis. However, spectators have to pass through security, with gates opening for the Ellipse and the National Mall at 4:00 a.m. and closing at 10:00 a.m.

It seems remarkable to me that people would begin lining up at 4 a.m. for a parade that wasn’t scheduled to start until seven hours later.

On Thursday morning the Pope is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress, which will be broadcast live. Three previous popes have come to the U.S., the first being Paul VI in 1965. This will be the first time, though, for a Pope to address Congress.

It will be interesting to hear what Pope Francis has to say there—and to how the members of Congress will respond. If he talks about matters related to anti-abortion and/or homosexuality issues, that would put him at odds with many Democrats.

On the other hand, if he talks about global warming, income equality and the problems of capitalism, and the immigration issue, which is more likely, he will spur strong disagreement from many Republicans.

At the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis was very highly regarded around the world. Even by February 2014, Gallup found that 76% of the people in the U.S. still had a favorable opinion of him.

By July of this year, though, that rating had fallen to 59%—and among conservatives there was only 45% approval. By comparison, in April 2008 Pope Benedict XVI had an approval rating of 63%, and for his 27 years as Pope, popular John Paul II had an average approval rating of 72%.

Francis’ popularity decline is partially due to what he has said about climate change, economics, and immigration.

It used to be that there was considerable opposition/criticism of the Pope, especially by Protestants, because of his religious beliefs. And certainly there are many things Pope Francis believes/teaches about Christianity that I don’t agree with.

Now most opposition to or criticism of the Pope is because of his stance on social and economic issues. And I agree with him on most of those matters—mainly because I think they are in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.

Pope Francis has said, “Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that create huge inequalities.” And he has repeatedly called for solidarity with the poor. 

Congresspeople, and all of us, need to listen well to what the Pope says.